The reason "bro" is such a good descriptive term is because unlike some of the other things said about the worst of #bropenscience this one sticks in a way they really don't like.
I'm for #openscience. That's why I care to criticise the frolicking brobots and their silliness.
-
-
Computer science conferences do open review well (at least in theory). The reviews are de-anonymised and public after rebuttals and acceptance. Also
@eLife does it well, where reviews get published with replied at the end of the paper.Show this thread -
Mixing and matching arbitrarily between closed review and open merely serves to bypass checks and consent. This creates a rich and richer scheme, exacerbating the power and privilege of the few.
Show this thread -
Comparing the engagement with the Profs' words, the ECR in this specific case (although I'm sure in other similar ones too) got completely ignored.
Show this thread -
Lessons to be learned here are so many. I hope people are trying to take something useful away here. I'm still grappling with the social dynamics here myself, but it's indubitably wrong to claim chaos is good for ECRs. What's good for us is stability, consent, being heard.
Show this thread -
-
And since I know what's going to be said: "why are you against open review, Olivia?" Look, literally while this debate is was going on, I did an open review (with consent of authors, in a formal system) of a paper: https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19054.r42058 … Maybe this example helps with nuance?
Show this thread -
What I'm trying to say is that labelling me (anybody, who comes from the open science community and presents criticism/feedback aimed towards dialogue and community discussion) as against open science is rhetoric. It's not based on my actions.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
